was,5 I find by comparison of dates, written at a time when no two papers in the United States agreed as to what the Dred Scott decision did mean—all the A. S. papers agreeing that if it meant anything, it meant the extension of slavery throughout the States. . . . I should really like to read the decision, with all the different ideas as to what it means—if I had a month's leisure. I must confess to not having yet done so, whatever the Westminster Review may have done. One thing seems clear—they made it, like the Constitution of the United States, of india-rubber: to read one way in one State, a second way in another, and a third out of the United States, and are frightened when its intentions are exposed.Scott's suit was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, the power of the State court in the premises being upheld; but the incidental doctrines enunciated were of the most alarming character. First, the Constitution recognizes no
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.